HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 7, 2001

• 1132

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): Colleagues, I see a quorum.

Our principal item of business today is the report on plans and priorities for the House of Commons administration, and it involves our Speaker and our clerk. But there's an item of procedural merit, which one of our members indicated we might be able to dispose of very quickly. I'll let him speak to it. If we can deal with it without any significant debate, we'll do so. Otherwise, we will go to our main item of business.

Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wonder if I could request the indulgence of the committee. Since the last time we discussed it, when the motion was tabled, I've had some discussions with all the parties as to how we can be a little more effective during the summer months. That involved asking the administration as well as the Library of Parliament to give us information on the technology that's available and the costing that might have to be put in place with regard to electronic voting in compliance with the criteria that were established by this particular committee.

I think the view of all the parties, including Rick, Bill, Michel, Cheryl, and Randy White, is that this motion would just direct the administration to come back with some options on technologies and the costing in a further report to this committee by the end of September. Then this committee could see how much money we're talking about, whether or not it's feasible, and whether or not there's an expression of interest out there in terms of technology.

Mr. Chair, if it's the view of this committee, being very respectful of the witnesses and the Speaker, who are here to talk about planning and priorities, I'd like to put the motion forward so that we could have this further report come to this committee by the end of September.

The Chair: If there is a consensus to deal with that matter now, I'll put to the committee the motion that has been drafted and circulated by Mr. Fontana.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): I have a question.

The Chair: Is it a question for Mr. Fontana?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Yes.

With regard to electronic voting, has it been taken into consideration that before we get to that point, wireless technology may be available, and therefore this would be redundant?

Mr. Joe Fontana: That's a possibility, of course. We'll only find that out when we put an expression of interest out there. Let's find out what's out there. So I think that's most appropriate.

• 1135

The Chair: Mrs. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I have a question about procedure. It's unrelated to this motion. It's more for my future benefit. When you rescind a motion, do you need two-thirds?

The Chair: I'm not aware of that rule. In fact, my understanding is quite different. The committee is quite capable of acting on its own initiative by a majority vote.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: My understanding from the old Robert's Rules of Order is that the same person can't put the motion on the floor again and that you need a two-thirds majority. But I'll wait and have that studied.

The Chair: Welcome to Parliament.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.

Before we ask our Speaker and clerk to address us, I did want to bring to your attention the presence in the room of a delegation of fellow parliamentarians from Kenya. I won't read their names. They're on a study mission to enhance knowledge and understanding in Kenya, just as we sometimes travel abroad to familiarize ourselves with how other parliaments operate. So on your behalf I would welcome them to Canada and to this committee meeting and wish them well. If you have any questions for members, feel free to put them to them during or after the meeting. We hope you have a good trip.

The second item I want to bring to your attention is that pursuant to our 19th report, which was concurred in in the House, we may or may not have some television coverage of this proceeding in accordance with the new rules. I believe it would be a first for this committee. I just record that for the record.

On a point of order, Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask you opinion about something. Do the provisions of the previous report of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs pertaining to the broadcasting of committee proceedings, specifically the rules governing camera angles, still hold? In other words, pursuant to the rules adopted by the committee, is the cameraman authorized to take a wide angle shot, or must he focus the camera on the person who has the floor?

[English]

The Chair: My understanding is that the camera must remain in a fixed position. With regard to the breadth and angle of the shot, I don't believe a specific specification was placed in the rules. So there will be either broad shots, narrow focused shots, or individual shots. Don't forget that this is a pilot test period, if I can call it that. In theory the cameras may be quite capable of focusing on the telephone message that sits in front of you on your desk. It's unclear to me. I'm sure the television cameras are not there for that purpose. Mr. Robertson brings to our attention that our report did require that the cameras respect the spirit of what we call the electronic Hansard. They are recording the proceedings. Most of our decisions are oral, not visual. However, the visual will now accompany the oral.

Having said that, let's see how it works, if that's okay with you, Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but I merely wanted to draw your attention to the fact that, as I recall, the amendments made to our previous report did not pertain to possible camera angles and that consequently, the provisions of the previous report aimed at restricting camera angles and maintaining existing rules, i.e. only close up shots of the person who has the floor are allowed, still apply.

• 1140

[English]

The Chair: Why don't we commence the meeting.

I'll have the clerk review the two prior reports while we're operating, and if we get an answer quickly, we'll bring it to your attention.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I have a point of order. It should be pointed out that the camera angle for the chairperson will always show the back of his head.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's fine.

The Chair: That's okay with your chair.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I'm sure that's what Stéphane meant in terms of camera angles—

The Chair: I have prepared the back of my head for this historic moment.

Let's get to our witnesses today: Mr. Speaker Milliken; our clerk, Mr. Corbett; and our Sergeant-at-Arms. Welcome. I know you have an opening statement on plans and priorities for the House of Commons administration.

The Honourable Peter Milliken (Speaker of the House of Commons): Having been a chair of this committee and having enjoyed many years of service on this committee, I've always been surprised that it wasn't televised before, because the proceedings of the committee are inevitably so stimulating and exciting.

However, we've come together today to discuss the report on plans and priorities for the year 2001-2002. The report lays the groundwork for the House of Commons administration to continue to improve services offered to all members of the House of Commons.

The House of Commons administration has set out several interesting objectives for the year to come, and I'm pleased to present them to you today.

[Translation]

With the Chair's permission, I will begin by providing an overview of the six priorities outlined in the Report on Plans and Priorities. The plans for the year 2001-2002 not only guarantee the continual provision of top-notch service to which we are accustomed but also set the wheels in motion for a number of new initiatives for the years to come.

[English]

The House of Commons administration remains committed to six priorities for the year 2001-2002. They are as follows: one, improving information resources for members; two, moving ahead with renovations; three, providing appropriate security; four, investing in people; five, improving communication; and six, reviewing reporting and performance.

[Translation]

In order to succeed in these priorities, the initiatives planned for the upcoming year are diverse, yet all of them move toward one common goal - the improvement of services offered to Members.

[English]

First, improving information resources for members. With regard to this first priority, members will reap the benefits of faster and easier access to information, both on the Hill and in their constituencies. We will be equipped with the latest technology, and network and client support services will be available 24 hours a day for those who might require some guidance when it comes to computers. I know that won't be many of this group. Requests for office supplies, printed material, and committee room bookings will also be available on-line for members' convenience. Furthermore, through the implementation of a major initiative, PRISM, members as well as the Canadian public will soon have access to new web-based information products.

[Translation]

The second initiative is moving ahead with renovations. Renovation on the Hill remains a top priority for the House Administration and will continue over the next year with a new committee room building project on top of the agenda. The committee building will be constructed to replace the inadequate committee room facilities that currently exist.

Renovation on the Hill can be a complex and a somewhat daunting task as we witnessed with the Justice Building. However, I am happy to announce that the renovation of the Justice Building is now near completion. Members began moving into the building this morning. Despite the delays, the Justice Building is truly a testament to the House Administration's ability to provide Members with cutting edge technology while preserving the historic integrity of a structure.

The Library of Parliament is another historical building that will undergo extensive renovation beginning this year and the House is currently organizing the provision of swing space in the Old Bank of Nova Scotia to house Library employees during the project.

[English]

Third, providing appropriate security. Security is always a paramount concern for all members. In 2001-2002 the House administration will continue to enhance its security by merging into one system the access control, the pass system, alarms, and closed-circuit television monitoring by implementing a new electronic integrated security system.

• 1145

Fourth, investing in people. Through its commitment to invest in people, the House of Commons remains dedicated to the retention of competent and motivated employees. In the face of large-scale retirement, advances in information technology, and the increasingly knowledge-based environment of the House of Commons, a long-term human resources renewal strategy will be implemented to ensure a professional and functional workforce well into the future.

A membership program has come into force matching new procedural clerks with their more experienced colleagues, allowing them to acquire procedural and operational knowledge. The number of lawyers in the office of the law clerk and parliamentary counsel has also been increased in order to enhance the level of expertise and the degree of specialization in both legal and legislative services.

[Translation]

The fifth initiative is improving communication. Effective communication is pivotal to the smooth functioning of the House of Commons. Many of the communication activities of the year are premised on building a culture that promotes open communication through the development of tools and systems that support good communication.

Communication will be fostered in the upcoming year through the upgrading of the current e-mail system, improvement of cell phone reception and a new look and feel for the IntraParl site.

Members can also look forward to many improvements to the communication link between the parliamentary precinct and constituencies during this fiscal year.

[English]

Sixth, reviewing and reporting performance. In addressing this final priority, the House administration continues to enhance its capacity to plan, manage, and measure results and assess risks toward the successful achievement of end results.

The financial information strategy is one of such initiatives, which will greatly alter the way government manages and presents its financial information. The transition to the financial information strategy will bring accounting methods in line with those of the private sector.

Other projects, such as election preparedness, will be assessed, and preparations will begin for the next round of elections in order to best serve members' needs during that time.

[Translation]

While the Report on Plans and Priorities 2001-2002 focuses on the major projects for the year to come, we must not overlook the continual day-to-day support that the Administration provides to all Members.

I think I speak for everyone here when I extend my appreciation for the dedication and professionalism of the House of Commons Administration in support of the Members' work in the Chamber, in committees, in constituencies and in caucus each and every day.

[English]

The above are a handful of the long-term projects that are on the agenda for this year to improve the services of the House.

I thank you for inviting me to appear today with my colleagues, and I'd be delighted to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We'll turn to the opposition first for questions. We'll stick to seven-minute rounds. Ms. Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, figure 10 on page 32 of the report on plans and priorities for 2001-2002 shows planned expenditures for 2001-2002 of $249 million, yet this figure is $274 million. Why would that be?

Speaker Peter Milliken: Sorry, where did you get the figure of—

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: We're comparing last year's report with this year's, and it appears that there's a difference of several million dollars.

Speaker Peter Milliken: You're on page 32, did you say?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Yes, page 32 of the 2001-2002 report.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Where's the $249 million?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: That was in last year's forecast.

Speaker Peter Milliken: I see. Those are the main estimates, but of course there would have been supplementary estimates.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So they would have been supplementaries.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes. There were some granted by special warrant as well, as I recall, in the last financial year. So that figure would be up by virtue of the supplementaries. I don't know that figure off the top of my head.

• 1150

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Okay, thank you.

If we go to page 15, it says the renovations to the cafeteria in Centre Block will be undertaken this year to ensure that codes for fire, ventilation, and safety continue to be met. Are they currently being met, and have any potential city retrofits or provincial retrofits been taken into consideration on that to ensure we're in line?

Speaker Peter Milliken: We're in fact involved in intricate planning for this work at this very moment. It's anticipated the work will be done probably over a two-year period to minimize the closure times of particularly the fifth floor cafeteria and avoid inconvenience to members when we come back in September. Members and their staff particularly would be severely inconvenienced by that, so we believe this work will be done over a two-year period.

Yes, there has been quite a lot work in terms of ensuring the connectedness of the systems in the cafeteria and in the kitchen above it, the sixth floor, for safety and compliance with necessary regulations. Indeed the costs appear to have gone up significantly from what we'd expected for that work.

The current state, I'll leave to my colleagues to answer. I'm not aware of any particular problem there.

The inspections are carried out by officials of Health Canada, and they're apparently ongoing. They continue to do these inspections to ensure the safety of the working environment there.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: And by the fire marshals, as well?

Major General G. Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons): We have our own fire marshal who does that.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: If we turn to page 19, then, looking at the second and fourth bullets, there are some deadlines on the assignment of security services employees to specific coaches in May 2001 and the development and distribution of six competency kits by 2001. Have the objectives for those projects been met?

MGen G. Cloutier: Yes. We are now in the third year of this program, and I expect that the whole model will be completed by the spring of 2003. It has been a very rewarding experience for us, and we are already seeing the results of this new model at work among our staff on the Hill.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So the objectives for this year were met.

Lastly, on page 23, in the first paragraph under “Financial Information Strategy—moving beyond compliance”, it says the House of Commons was committed to become financial information strategy compliant no later than April 1, 2001. Was your objective met?

Mr. William Corbett (Clerk of the House of Commons): Yes, indeed it was.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker Peter Milliken: My pleasure.

The Chair: Well, that's good.

Are there further questions or comments, colleagues, on plans and priorities? Monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I don't know if people are camera shy, but as a rule...

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the team and Mr. Cloutier for the move now underway at the Justice Building. Mr. Nystrom's office has been moved, the phones are already working and employees are pleased with the way things have gone. I was in my office last night at 10 p.m. and the movers were hard at work. I asked some other members this morning if they had been to their offices and they told me that the move was proceeding smoothly. Therefore, I think some congratulations are in order.

Speaker Peter Milliken: The movers work at night.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I think it's worth mentioning that everything is going smoothly.

I'd like to comment on the renovations. Parliament receives many visitors. Many of them would like to sit in the gallery but are turned away. Are the any plans underway to expand the visitors' gallery. That's something to consider.

MGen G. Cloutier: There isn't enough space to expand.

• 1155

Mr. Yvon Godin: I also think we should discuss the environment. It is a very timely subject.

Yesterday, a question was put to Lucienne Robillard, the President of the Treasury Board, in the House of Commons. House employees asked if they could be issued bus passes, which might encourage many of them to take the bus. This would free up some parking spaces and would also be good for the environment.

Speaker Peter Milliken: The Board of Internal Economy is considering this request which was submitted by a Member. The problem is the cost associated with creating a separate category in the payment system. It's very... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... but the government did it. We consulted Treasury Board with a view to setting up a program. The House is interested, but we are waiting for a decision from the President of the Treasury Board.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't know if everyone has the same problem, but we have two computers supplied by the House in our offices. Most of the time, we have two staff members. At least I have two people on staff and I believe the same is true for most Members here in their Ottawa office. However, there is room for a third staff member. We had room for three employees in the Wellington Building and it's the same in the Justice Building.

If we had a third computer, we could take on a university student and give young people an opportunity to learn about the workings of Parliament. Could we possibly consider this suggestion?

Speaker Peter Milliken: I don't think the Board of Internal Economy is prepared to consider this proposal at this time, but members can certainly use funds in their budget to purchase a third computer. For instance, I purchased a laptop which can be used by staff working in my office. I believe I now have two of them. The old one no longer suits my requirements, but it's fine for someone working only a few hours a day, for example.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm wondering if perhaps the House would be willing to consider...

Speaker Peter Milliken: You can use the funds in your budget to buy another computer.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I realize that. We can use our budget to buy whatever we like. I'm not talking about my office budget though, but about the House budget. I'm making this request of you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker Peter Milliken: No. I did that before I was elected Speaker. You can request a third computer from Administration and I believe they could provide you with one. It might take some time, but it's possible.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm a patient man, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker Peter Milliken: I know you are.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'll bring the matter up again later.

Speaker Peter Milliken: I'm sure you will.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—Île d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For your information, Mr. Speaker, since you're always keen on using the correct term in French, a laptop is “un ordinateur portable”.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Portable. Fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: That's what a laptop is called in French.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Thank you.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, and in deference to your standing, I wish my English was as good as yours.

I'd like to hear your views on the asbestos problem. The asbestos industry is very important in Quebec, less so than it was several years or decades ago, for sure, but as I see it, Parliament is to some extent fueling the paranoia surrounding asbestos and contributing to the product's bad reputation, particularly in Europe. Thousands of jobs could be in jeopardy.

• 1200

I'm looking here at page 24 of your report. I should have stated right away that I am not implying in any way that health and safety in the workplace are not important or should be taken lightly. However, I refer you to the paragraph entitled “Enhancing the Asbestos Control Program” where the following is stated:

The Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committee sought to obtain an impartial assessment [...]

Therefore, an independent evaluation. The report goes on to note this:

An independent firm carried out a third party review and concluded that, under normal conditions [...]

I'd like to know what is meant by normal conditions, as opposed to abnormal conditions.

and as long as the current precautionary measures continue to be applied, the building is safe from occupational health and engineering points of view.

The building in question is the Wellington Building.

If this is too technical for you, Mr. Speaker, you can ask someone else to respond. This isn't a trick question, but I would like to know the meaning of “precautionary measures”. We receive notices on a regular basis advising us that Public Works and Government Services Canada will be removing asbestos from a particular area of the Wellington Building. I imagine that this independent firm reassured the employees working in the Wellington Building, but some of these statements need to be explained further. If this is too technical for you, from an occupational health and safety standpoint, perhaps you could ask someone else to field my question. However, I would like to know what you mean by “current precautionary measures”.

Speaker Peter Milliken: I believe Mr. Desroches can answer that question. He's familiar with these current precautionary measures, while I am not.

Mr. Luc Desroches (Director General, Corporate Resources, House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The study was carried out by Dessau-Soprin, an independent firm of experts, which was jointly selected by union and administration representatives after the bids of several firms were reviewed. We reported on the firm's findings, specifically that under normal conditions, there is no risk to workers. Provided no construction is undertaken, no dust is stirred up, no ceiling tiles are removed, walls relocated or new offices built, under normal everyday conditions, the building poses no risk to workers.

Occasionally, some work needs to be done. Maybe it's cleaning or construction. A Bell Canada technician may need to string a wire through the ceiling and we know there's asbestos in the ceiling.

The reference here is to current precautionary measures. When work is scheduled to be done, the building's occupants are given several hours or even a day's advance notice. The unions are notified as well that some work has been scheduled.

A protocol has been established. If some ceiling tiles need to be removed, then tents may need to be installed. Workers may be given masks with filters. All of these requirements are spelled out in the protocol which was drafted with the help of occupational health and safety experts. We also worked closely with the unions. Any time work is scheduled to be done in the Wellington Building, a specific procedure must be followed. That's why you receive many notices. We agreed that everyone would be notified of impending work.

• 1205

Mr. Michel Guimond: Moving on to a different subject, I'd like to discuss human resources management. I'm not sure of the exact title or classification of each position, but I would like to know... My concern is for restaurant workers, particularly the women who serve meals at dinner in the anterooms, that is in both the government and opposition anterooms, when the House continues to sit through the dinner hour.

While conversing with people informally, sometimes while smoking a cigarette outside the Centre Block - just so that you don't go off on a witch hunt or think some employees put members up to this - I discovered that apparently some of these workers haven't worked enough hours in 2001 to collect EI benefits. You may say that I am indulging in demagoguery and playing politics with this situation, but as I see it, politics is the reason we're here. This isn't a religious community.

Given the recent cuts to the EI program, is it possible that some House employees may not qualify for benefits? I'm talking about employees hired on... I'm not sure what you call them here. I worked for 16 years in the human resources field before being elected to Parliament. However, I'm not sure if you refer to them as part-time, casual or regular part-time employees, since I'm unfamiliar with the job classifications. Therefore, is it possible that some House of Commons employees do not qualify for benefits?

Often times, the employees involved are women who are single parents. This represents for them a one-way ticket to the welfare lines. I'm concerned for these workers, and for those who don't work on the Hill as well, but since you're responsible for human resources management, I wanted to verify the facts with you.

Speaker Peter Milliken: The elections certainly led to a drop in demand for workers in this and in other buildings as well. Restaurant workers may well be experiencing some problems. I regret to say that I'm not familiar with all of the employment insurance rules. However, I do recall that a question was asked about this very same subject yesterday during Question Period. The question did not directly concern House employees, but rather changes to the legislation. This is the first time I've heard about restaurant workers encountering this particular problem.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Guimond is making a pitch on behalf of non-full-time employees in relation to eligibility for employment insurance benefits. In fairness to the Speaker and the clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms, they don't administer the employment insurance program. But your question I suppose could be taken as a representation on behalf of those workers who perhaps don't have enough hours built up normally to qualify for EI benefits, in the event they would need to.

I don't think we have to go too deeply into the workings of the employment insurance program, and I'd like to wrap up that issue fairly quickly, if we could.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, you've approached the issue from the other direction. I'm not asking these people for information on how the employment insurance program is administered; I'm asking them, as employers, if possibly the hours of work or... The Speaker made a good point when he said the elections may have been a factor. That's why I was asking them if, as employers, they could adjust these schedules so that workers don't find themselves forced onto social assistance. I'm interested in their opinion as employers, not as employment insurance administrators.

• 1210

[English]

The Chair: That's fine.

Mr. Corbett.

[Translation]

Mr. William Corbett: Mr. Speaker, at least we can look at what happened. Obviously, the election affected the number of hours worked this year by employees. However, since I don't have the information at hand, I can't answer the question right now. It's possible it affected the number of hours of work and created a special situation. We always manage our staff in accordance with the directives of the Board of Internal Economy. We'll review our options.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Corbett. These workers may be only one, two or five weeks short of the number needed to qualify for EI. I'm not asking you to do anything illegal. However, would it be possible to cancel a outside contract so that our House employees can qualify for EI benefits? Perhaps some arrangement could be made to ensure that these workers earn a decent income.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Guimond. You certainly got the clerk's attention, and he's heard your representation, as has the Speaker.

Mr. Macklin, a short question, please, and a short answer.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I'd like to have two clarifications.

First, on page 11 you talk about how you're going to, over the coming year, wire the chamber. What facilities will be available within the chamber for us? Will it be adequate to allow us to use our laptops, our portables, in the House and fully connect with the system?

Secondly, on page 32, with respect to the Confederation Building, since many of us have that as our home away from home, I'm wondering if someone could explain to me what the content of alternate operations centre is, and what is meant by the explanation below that for $145 million. I honestly don't have any idea about talking about the minimum requirement for space and ergonomics and so forth.

Speaker Peter Milliken: I actually can deal with the second question first, and it sounds like it's the Sergeant-at-Arms who is going to tell us all about the alternate operations centre. Then we'll have Mr. Bard answer the first question.

MGen G. Cloutier: Basically, we have the main security operations centre located in the Wellington Building at the moment. When it goes down, then we have no place to go. What we're doing now, gradually, is setting up an alternate security operations centre, it's as simple as that, so that should we have an emergency, should something happen to the building, we have a secondary place to go.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: What type of security are we talking about, just so I understand it?

MGen G. Cloutier: It's security that links all the buildings with a view on video, an audio-visual type of thing. Have you seen a police station operation?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Yes.

MGen G. Cloutier: It's the same type of thing, with all the computer work and all that.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Very good. Thank you.

Could someone respond in respect to the other question, the wiring of the chamber?

Mr. William Corbett: Yes. I'll turn it over to Louis Bard. But basically, for the technicalities, we're in the process of doing an examination of the existing infrastructure under the floors with a view to upgrading the audio system. This will be undertaken during a period of time when we'll also require negotiations with Public Works and Government Services as to what part of the costs of any future upgrade they are prepared to share with us.

Indeed, the long-term goal is connectivity for laptops, including the connection to the network, data connection, and plug-in capability—in other words, having electrical power at the desk. It's a major undertaking.

Louis, do you want to expand on that?

Mr. Louis Bard (Chief Information Officer, House of Commons): In all the planning we've been doing, including examining for electronic voting, looking at the renovation plans, and focusing for a new temporary chamber eventually in the West Block, the full planning has taken into account providing members in those facilities the same access to services that you have currently in your offices. That's the objective. It's a question of time and fundings as we progress with the renovation of those facilities.

• 1215

Mr. William Corbett: The original intent, Mr. Macklin, was not to upgrade the audio system because the early renovation plans would have had us moving out of this building at a much closer date. It is now clear to us that is a much more long-term objective, and the audio cabling and the whole audio system in the chamber will not last. It's already at the end of its useful life and will have to be replaced before we make a move. We would take advantage of that project to cable against future requirements.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But this is clearly going to happen in the next 12 months, according to this?

Mr. Louis Bard: We are focusing the effort to implement as money becomes available. We've been making all kinds of proposals and requests, and as we become clear about the plan and how long we have to stay in the Centre Block, and the source of funding, we will proceed with the implementation.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: We've been hearing that this was going to occur this summer. Is that inaccurate?

Mr. Louis Bard: It is inaccurate, yes. It will not happen this summer.

Mr. William Corbett: It simply can't be done that fast. It's a major undertaking in terms of lining up the financing, as well.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: So the statement in here that this is going to be implemented over the coming year is inaccurate?

Mr. William Corbett: Before proceeding with the implementation of a plan, we have to do a needs inventory. The officials of ISD, working with Public Works Canada, have been going under the floor and taking an inventory of every piece of cabling and equipment under there and the space available for new cable trays, etc., in order to construct a plan.

Then we have to go to Public Works in terms of what element of that plan they will share with us as proprietors of the building. Then, knowing that, we will begin to blueprint some plan, which then has to be costed.

Mr. Louis Bard: There is a lot of work in progress. It always depends, again, on funding availability.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But “implement” does not mean install, it appears?

The Chair: To implement a plan does not—

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Implementing a plan is what we're up to. All right. I was more hopeful, but—

The Chair: This is a work in progress—

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Certainly.

The Chair: —as is our meeting today. The questions continue to be slightly longer than short, and the answers are appropriate to the questions.

Monsieur Guimond, you've indicated you have a short question.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I have two short questions. Page 29 of the report contains a figure entitled “Summary of Revenues Credited to the Vote”. You probably won't be able to answer my question right away, but I would appreciate, as I'm sure my colleagues seated at this table would, receiving through the clerk a summary of the evolution over the past ten years of revenues from food services. Is there a connection between this and the price of meals served in the Parliamentary Restaurant? You'll see where I'm headed with this question. At one time, it was widely believed that the low cost of meals served in the Parliamentary Restaurant...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Guimond, these were to be two short questions, so I'd appreciate it if you could just get to the question. I realize you have a bit of a preamble, but the chair would appreciate your focus on brevity. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Meal prices have always been seen as being subsidized by taxpayers. As far as food services are concerned, is there some connection here with the price Members pay for a meal at the Parliamentary Restaurant?

Mr. William Corbett: Costs are indeed much higher than revenues, Mr. Guimond.

• 1220

Mr. Luc Desroches: To answer your question, Mr. Guimond, I would have to say that the prices charged in the cafeteria and in the Parliamentary Restaurant are directly tied to the prices charged elsewhere in the downtown area. We charge market prices at both locations.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, practically speaking, your represent 301 Members. You also serve as arbitrator, but I'm appealing to you as the representatives of all Members.

On the subject of language training, might some thought be given to offering MPs some Spanish language training, even if they have to pay for it themselves? Canada has signed various trade agreements with Mexico, particularly since the Quebec Summit, and in view of the new Free Trade Area with the Americas, I think there is a growing demand from MPs for this kind of language training. We discussed the matter with our caucus and we're wondering if we could be accommodated, even if we have to pay for the training ourselves. I'm not saying that taxpayers should have to pay for Mandarin lessons for a Member, but I think we can't overlook the new reality of the Spanish language.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Mr. Guimond, the Board of Internal Economy has already given the matter some thought. As you undoubtedly know, we have modified the rules governing Members' budgets. Funds can now be drawn on these budget to hire the services of a Spanish teacher. This major rule change was approved by the Board after hearing representations from a highly skilled member of your party, namely the whip, who is here today. The Board has decided not to pay for Spanish language training as such, but has agreed that Members can use money in their budgets for this purpose.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Guimond. Those are actually two very good questions.

We'll wrap up with just a couple of procedural items. I could say to the Speaker, the Clerk, and the Sergeant-at-Arms, thank you very much for attending today.

Is there another question?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Yes. We're estimated at spending about $1.5 billion on the improvements to the House of Commons, yet when we come upon the grounds in front of the Centre Block, there's a real problem with the lawns and the manicuring. There are huge brown patches where grass should be. The paving stones are uneven and the sod that's laid is very unattractive.

Are there standards incorporated into the contracts that have been negotiated for this? And who is doing the contracting on it?

Speaker Peter Milliken: The grounds are maintained, Ms. Gallant, by the National Capital Commission.

In my experience, this brown grass is normally replaced. Don't hold your breath, but I would expect it might happen quite soon. I've seen the same thing, and my experience here over the years leads me to believe that they'll wait and see if it's going to grow back. And when they're satisfied it isn't, it's re-sodded, usually in a fairly lavish manner. It's well looked after. It will be done by the first of July, and they're probably hoping it will grow back from the edge. They do fix it, and they do it quite well. It's just a matter of time.

The Chair: Great.

Mr. Bergeron

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to focus for a moment on something my colleague Mr. Guimond said regarding an excerpt on page 24 of the report on asbestos control. Someone reading this excerpt could get the impression that the government's right hand is unaware of what the left hand is doing. On the one hand, the government is trying to defend asbestos on the world stage while on the other hand, it is working to remove the material from the walls and ceilings of its heritage buildings.

• 1225

Just so the average person understands that the government knows what it is doing, I think it's important to explain that the asbestos being removed from the heritage buildings on Parliament Hill was installed a number of years ago. At the time, asbestos was a friable material and posed a potential health risk. The asbestos being produced today, however, is much safer because the fibres are compacted, so to speak. It is a far safer product, from a health standpoint. Hence the confusion that surrounds this product. While I don't think we can amend this report, I do think that in future reports on plans and priorities, we can clear up this misconception about the Canadian and Quebec asbestos industry.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Certainly, Mr. Bergeron. We can rectify this problem in next year's report.

I have one other comment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Based on Mr. Macklin's question, the sergeant has indicated he'd be more than happy to take members on a tour of the operations centre that exists now in the Wellington Building, at their convenience. I did it years ago, and it was an interesting and fascinating tour. Members of the committee who wish to go could arrange a tour with the sergeant.

The Chair: That's a very kind offer, and thank you very much. Some members may well take advantage of that.

Having said that, we've now completed this element of the meeting, and it would be acceptable to members if our witnesses took their leave and got on with the rest of their busy day.

We thank you all very much for attending today on the plans and priorities element of our continuing work here.

We have two or three procedural items to take care of. During our next meeting we will be continuing with the clause-by-clause consideration of the poet laureate bill, Bill S-10. We have not completed dealing with that yet, so we'll take that up on Tuesday next.

Secondly, the liaison committee has asked that we consider placing vice-chairs of committees as alternate members of the liaison committee. That issue hasn't really been dealt with. There may be some appetite for discussion around the table of that as well on Tuesday.

Last but not least, I did want to clarify the matter of television coverage raised by Mr. Bergeron. It is fairly clear in our report and in the previous reports. I'll just read a couple of sentences, and I quote:

Generally, this means that only the individual recognized by the chair is to be filmed. Close-up shots (of people or documents), and reaction shots, among others, are not permitted.

So we'll see how the televising goes. The camera people should all be aware of that rule.

Thank you for raising it, Mr. Bergeron.

Ms. Gallant had a comment on something procedural.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: I would like to make a point of clarification on the motion Mr. Fontana put forth.

The official opposition agrees that further study is needed on this. Now that I've had a chance to digest the full wording, as opposed to what was just read out for the motion, the official opposition does not favour, in principle, the adoption of electronic voting. And we wanted that to go on the record. We want further consultation and study before we take a position on that.

The Chair: In the absence of debate on the motion, it's quite acceptable to indicate that. We don't necessarily have 100% agreement in everything, but the study by the clerk will proceed over the summer. That was the general intent of the motion. Clearly, on that particular issue, it's an item of significance. Nothing is going to move before this committee or the House fully adopts a committed decision to acquire electronic voting, if it wishes to and if the committee wishes to. So we are still in a study stage. Some members have moved in principle, others have not. Is that fair enough?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I merely...

[English]

The Chair: I don't want to get into a debate on the motion. I've allowed Ms. Gallant to clarify.

Do you wish to do the same thing, Mr. Godin?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Precisely. I merely wanted to say that I agree. True, the motion called for a study. I agree with the member. It says here that the committee supports in principle the introduction of electronic voting. This hasn't yet been decided. I just want us to be clear on this point. This is not the motion that was originally tabled. We only agreed to have a study done, until the fall.

• 1230

[English]

The Chair: Okay, let the record show that.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: We'll deal with the rest in the fall.

[English]

The Chair: Hopefully, this will allow the clerk to proceed. The whole matter will be back in front of this committee in the fall.

Monsieur Bergeron, you have a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, colleagues had until June 4 to respond to your request concerning the form to retain the services of legislative counsel.

You've described the problem quite clearly. You have attached the form prepared by the House along with the guidelines drawn up by the House. However, I have to wonder just how much the results or comments of our colleagues were influenced by the fact that you neglected to include in your document the findings of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. You referred to the committee's findings, but failed to make them available to colleagues. That's the first point I wanted to make.

Secondly, I have a question. Now that we've heard colleagues' views on the subject, I'd like to know if you intend to follow up on this matter between now and the end of this session, or at the very least, the start of the next session? Since we know the Sub- committee on Procedure and House Affairs is scheduled to meet shortly, what decision will it reach further to this consultation with colleagues?

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to leave your questions unanswered on the record and we'll get to those in the next few days.

Mrs. Parrish, you have a point of order.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes. I would like to reiterate my question at the beginning of the discussion on electronic voting. In my vast experience as a school board chair, and using Robert's Rules of Order, you cannot have the same mover move to remove or rediscuss. You have to get somebody else to do it. Otherwise, you'd have the same person coming back all the time. You also have to have two-thirds of a vote to reopen an issue like that.

I'd like that to be researched by the clerk. I may need it in the future. I don't intentionally irritate, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I understand, but I'm unclear as to who is moving something the second time.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Fontana obviously moved that motion last week.

The Chair: No, it was a tabling motion. I don't believe he moved the tabling.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Okay, but you still needed two-thirds to reopen the discussion.

The Chair: Apparently, according to Robert's—

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Apparently, yes.

The Chair: Parliamentary rules sometimes vary from Robert's.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'd just like to have it checked.

The Chair: The clerk will take note of your question and perhaps we'll get a quick answer.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you.

The Chair: That being said, thank you, colleagues.

We'll adjourn the meeting until Tuesday.